Prior art equipment for microdermoabrasion present considerable drawbacks:
1) Formation of bacterial sacs is difficult to eliminate. PA1 2) Obstruction of the flow of air and reducing substances that causes the equipment to become blocked. PA1 acne scars; PA1 light wrinkles and long sun exposure wrinkles; PA1 disfiguring scars; PA1 stretch marks; PA1 hyperpigmentation; PA1 tatoos; PA1 burns.
These drawbacks are in large part a result of the configuration of the handpiece.
It is known in the prior art of equipment and handpieces to effect localized operations of microdermoabrasion through a flow of a mixture of air and reducing substances.
For example, European Patent Application No. EP-A-0 324 448 discloses equipment for human epidermis microdermoabrasion which comprises a handpiece having an entrance and an exit pipe which share an opening that may be placed on the surface to be treated. The equipment further comprises a pneumatic supply of reducing substances. The equipment is characterized by supplying means which includes a vacuum, and the entrance pipe is connected to a container where reducing substances are found. The container is provided with a large number of entrance holes for providing air. Some of the entrance holes have associated valves. Air and reducing substances are mixed within the container.
Even if this equipment resolves the problem of obstruction of flow, it does not solve an additional problem of needing easy sterilization. Sterilization would involve disassembly of the whole system by a specialized technician, which is not a reasonable procedure.
European Patent Application No. EP-A-0 318 042 discloses equipment with a handpiece for microdermoabrasion. The equipment includes a device for air compression and also a vacuum.
The mixture of air and reducing substances goes through a nozzle inside of the handpiece and is turned towards an exit window, and is then projected onto an area of skin to be treated. The handpiece is assembled from multiple components, which entails a considerable production cost. All components of the handpiece, to avoid corrosion, are manufactured from special materials, for example tungsten steels, or WIDIA.RTM.. For other handpieces of this kind, it has been suggested that the head, in which the window extends for application to the skin, should be advantageously manufactured from a disposable material, for instance polycarbonate.
The equipment of European Patent Application No. EP-A-0 318 042 does not solve the problem of allowing sterilization with a reasonable procedure. The equipment uses a pneumatic system called "reversing air flux", that does not always act in an efficaciously way and that worsens the hygienic problem of bacterial sac formation. In trying to avoid disassembly it is useful to effect air flow at the interior of the pipes in a direction opposite the normal work direction of the mixture of air and reducing substances. However this operation may cause abraded tissue to pollute the container of reducing material, which will be in contact with the future patient's skin and potentially have negative implications. The above-mentioned obstructions often occur at the handpiece level.